Obama 2005: Ending the filibuster will only make gridlock worse, you know

posted at 5:21 pm on November 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

Nearly everyone’s seen this clip before — O’s opportunistic hypocrisy on judicial appointments is old, old news — but it’s getting a fresh look on Twitter today now that Reid’s dropped the bomb. The lefty spin on this is “Who cares? Both sides change their opinions of the filibuster depending upon whether they have a majority in the Senate or not.” Right, but both sides haven’t actually gone nuclear. The hypocrisy is strictly rhetorical — or was, until today. And the fact is, Senator Obama had a fair point at the time: The more the Senate majority tries to disempower the minority, the more disgruntled and obstructionist the minority will become. Ed and I made that point today ourselves. Even tea-party Republicans in the Senate have granted unanimous consent before in the name of moving the legislative process along when they didn’t have the votes to alter the outcome. That’ll change now to some degree.

Having already weakened the taboo against lowering the 60-vote threshold, O and the Senate Dems will be sorely tempted to extend it to Supreme Court nominees if another vacancy arises before the end of his term. He’s a lame duck so he has nothing to lose by making his next appointee more radical than Sotomayor or Kagan. And Democrats who do have something to lose, like Pryor, Landrieu, and the rest of the red-state caucus, will now be free to vote no without jeopardizing the nominee’s chances of confirmation. Even if Democrats resist the temptation to lower the bar for SCOTUS appointees, it’s a cinch that O’s lower-court appointees will be more radical over the next three years than they otherwise might have been. Which, of course, is a big deal, as it’s the appellate and district court judges who craft most of America’s jurisprudence. He can make the federal judiciary much more liberal before 2016 than he could have before, all the while framing himself as a “moderate” because he and Reid, in their glorious magnanimity, have decided to let Republicans keep the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Though the rule’s changes will allow Obama to install a lot of liberal judges and executive officials in the near term, in the long run, ending the judicial filibuster will benefit conservatives.

The reason is that liberals are simply much better at demonizing conservative judicial appointees, even those with sterling credentials. In many cases, this has prompted Republican presidents to choose “stealth” nominees who end up taking an expansive view of the Constitution once they’re on the bench.

Scrapping the 60-vote threshold will make it easier for a future conservative president to choose judges who believe that the Constitution granted limited powers to the federal government.

One other fun fact about O’s egregious hypocrisy between now and then: He claimed in both cases that the Founders supported his position. Watch to the end here and you’ll hear that the Founders didn’t want the Senate’s minority party railroaded into silence. Watch today’s speech and you’ll hear that the Founders never anticipated a Senate minority as obstructionist as the GOP, which I guess means George Washington’s given the green light for railroading. Times change, and evidently the Founders change with them. Exit quotation: “When you start, it’s like wars — there’s no end to this. I don’t know where it goes.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

While this rule change does not apply to legislation, it will ‘poison the well’ in the Senate. As such, if Republicans are smart, they should make it clear that Democrats can kiss ‘unanimous consent’ goodbye. Make Democrats read every word of every piece of legislation and, if one word is omitted or mispronounced, make them start over. And every time an amendment is added, make them read the entire thing again.

On the bright side for the American people: Democrats will think twice before writing 2,000 page ‘comprehensive’ bills.

and it is working for now, all the lib blogs are awash in this and nothing else. Reality waits around the corner though. As Ace mentioned yesterday when it comes to Obamacare Obama is in the certain sweet spot where he can’t go forward with his law without changing it (limited ability there without the house), won’t go back on his signature namesake legislation and certainly can’t stand still as the impacts are mounting.

And to think some close associate of William Bly Jefferson Clinton in attempting to explain to another operative the inner workings of the Boy President drew a box on a piece of paper and with the pen pointed to the figure saying, “There is no ‘THERE’ there.’

The flip-floping of President Asterisk is beyond that troubling description. It is amazing how SHALLOW his thinking process is.

Gee, what a shock! CNN managed to get their Clinton Groupie “pollsters” to magically keep O’Liar’s job approval above 40%. They couldn’t let him do as badly as he did on that C-BS poll from 2 days ago.

This is the closest political equivalent to Affirmative Action that I have seen in my lifetime.

We are being told that the nation’s first African American President cannot be held to the same standard as the presidents of the last 200 years. He should only have to get 50 votes instead of 60.

All the presidents from the last 200 years have something in common with each other that Obama does not share, besides race. All of their judicial and cabinet appointments were made with 60 votes in the Senate.

and it is working for now, all the lib blogs are awash in this and nothing else. Reality waits around the corner though. As Ace mentioned yesterday when it comes to Obamacare Obama is in the certain sweet spot where he can’t go forward with his law without changing it (limited ability there without the house), won’t go back on his signature namesake legislation and certainly can’t stand still as the impacts are mounting.

This is a shiny squirrel.

DanMan on November 21, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Obamacare? What’s that? Oh, you mean the ACA. I would love to see a Dem vs a ‘Pub and have them each use opposing terms. So funny.

Reid’s timing was brought on by the ObamaCare debacle. Dear Leader will do whatever is necessary, legal or otherwise to win.
According to Juan Williams who got a chance to kiss Dear Leader’s ring today, said the WH is getting ready to fight.

Exactly. I see this as a galvanizing factor for the House. Obviously Reid and the Senate can’t be trusted to even go by their most long-standing rules. The House shouldn’t leave ANYTHING up to the Senate, at all.

Obamacare? What’s that? Oh, you mean the ACA. I would love to see a Dem vs a ‘Pub and have them each use opposing terms. So funny.

HiJack on November 21, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Why don’t Dems want to remind people that Obama is behind the ACA? He’s a lightworker. He’s the greatest President never…nay, the greatest human being ever. Shouldn’t they be shouting his name from the rooftops?

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.
…
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

So Obama and Reid are willing to piss off all the independents and the democrats who don’t want to go the full bore socialist route? And don’t forget – maybe those RINO’s will understand what the hell we have been saying!

According to Juan Williams who got a chance to kiss Dear Leader’s ring today, said the WH is getting ready to fight.

d1carter on November 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Obama, his socialist party, and their media have used every tool, trick, and lie under the sun to fight for Obamacare but yet they failed very miserably on every level… They have no tool left to win the Obamacare war, it is over for them…

Even if Democrats resist the temptation to lower the bar for SCOTUS appointees, it’s a cinch that O’s lower-court appointees will be more radical over the next three years than they otherwise might have been.

Most likely Obama will make radical appointments to lower courts in the next ONE year. But if voters throw Dem bums out of the Senate next November over Obamacare, we’ll get judicial gridlock in 2015-16.